Collectively, the men have served at least 30 years behind bars. They were sentenced to a combined 86 years. Federal public defender Dennis Terez called the release of so many people at one time unprecedented.

Fallout from the case is expected to spread beyond the federal courthouses in Cleveland and Akron, where the men were convicted of dealing crack cocaine in Mansfield.

Uncorroborated snitch testimony is inherently unreliable and our system has depended on it for far too long.

The case is a blow to the federal justice system, which relies heavily on informant-based testimony, lawyers said. The men, some with no prior run-ins with the law, were given long prison sentences based almost exclusively on the word of informant Jerrell Bray and Lee Lucas, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent who supervised Bray.

An investigation is ongoing into the conduct of the DEA Agent Lee Lucas who supervised the informant.

Also revealing is that most of the inmates to be released pleaded guilty. Here's why. [more...]

They might have done so because of the case of Geneva France, a mother of three with no record. She steadfastly proclaimed her innocence and refused plea bargains that would have sent her to prison for up to four years. France went to trial but was convicted based on the testimony of Bray and Lucas.

France was sentenced to 10 years in prison, sending a message to the other defendants to take plea bargains or face longer prison sentences.

Our system which relies so heavily on purchased testimony from informants -- whether bought with money or promises of leniency in their own cases -- is morally bankrupt. Freedom is a precious commodity and the incentive to lie in order to satisfy the Government that it is hearing "the truth" is enormous.

The informant has been sentenced for his lies:

Bray was sentenced to 15 years in prison for perjury and civil rights violations and is working with a U.S. Justice Department task force investigating how the case unfolded.

Will the Government give him another sentencing break if he rats out the DEA Agent? Will the DEA agent, if charged, argue that Bray is not a credible witness and singing for his supper? How ironic that would be.

...I was asking about yesterday when I posted about the freed death row inmates. I was trying to find statistics about all exonerations - like these. Like the Tulia, Tx. convictions. It's astonishing how often I read or hear about these 'bad' convictions.

...The use of jailhouse snitch testimony has been widely used throughout the American criminal justice system. Unfortunately jailhouse snitches are often utilized by prosecutors despite their testimony being widely regarded as the least reliable form of evidence in the criminal justice system. A 2005 study of 111 death row exonerees found that 51 were wrongly sentenced to death in part due to testimony of witnesses with incentive to lie...

I was invited to his hearing on incarceration. THis is a subject thats near and dear to my heart. Subjects like this is what drew me to TL every day. Keep up the good work.

They have a picture of me at the hearings on his website(smile). I didn't get to speak of course, only the experts spoke. They know my concerns and hopefully they will do more than just listen.

They know how I feel about paid informants being able to go before grand juries and sitting up other people. Afterwards, they tell people those arrested are the ones snitching. It causes all kinda harm and chaos in communities.

If you have strict POSSESSION laws, prosecutors can recommend long sentences for known bad characters without relying on jail-house snitches or making victims of violent threats take additional risk by testifying in court.
If the jury convicted based on a jail-house snitch, then isn't this the jury's and grand jury's fault? It isn't the prosecution's duty to only prosecute a 100% sure case. This is mainly an indictment of the finders of fact, whether it was judge or jury, as well as of grand juries that will indict a ham sandwich.
The "anti-snitch" attitude (known as omerta in Sicily) also leads to real witnesses being menaced about testifying against real violent people. The main victims are other people who live in the neighborhood.

I hear what you are saying, but I was refering to paid informats being used to testify before a gran jury in order to get an indictment. My concern is they will say what the prosecutors tell them to say.

I was refering how paid informants are used. I only used their being used before gran juries as an example. I wasn't invited to the hearings based on what takes place when innocent citizens witness crimes.